The unelected lords of Westminster

Under Britain's failed reform plans, the majority of the chamber would have been elected.

Sam Ingram: Audience submitted

At least Canberra's motley crew of new senators are widely representative of their constituents - if you want to see democracy in inaction, just look at the House of Lords in London, writes Emma Alberici.

To all those people scratching their heads about the Senate voting system in Australia, spare a thought for the British whose upper house is entirely unelected.

There's a certain irony in moaning about the six ordinary folk joining the Parliament in Canberra while the Poms angst about "Peers" who are anything but. Ninety two members of the House of Lords are only there because they were born rich, having inherited their titles from the original crop of wealthy landowners who date back to the 14th century.

In 1999, a cap of 92 was placed on their number. Twenty six others are senior Church of England bishops. The rest are working peers, appointed by the Queen on advice and recommendation of the Prime Minister and other party leaders. Like the Australian Senate, the House of Lords scrutinises bills approved by the House of Commons. It can force the Commons to reconsider decisions but the fundamental difference is that it can't prevent bills passing in to law.

Among the working peers list, more than two thirds owe their titles to political patronage. Many of the others are big political donors who have been rewarded for their generosity with plush red chairs in the Palace of Westminster.

Of the 30 recruits who joined the chamber last month, 18 have held or sought public office or have worked for politicians. Two of the most notable exceptions are the Tesco executive Chris Holmes who is also a non-executive director of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and a strong voice for the disabled. Labor's celebrated pick was Jamaican-born campaigner Doreen Lawrence whose son Stephen was killed in a racist attack. Over more than a decade she fought for reforms to the police service culminating in a public inquiry which made international headlines when it concluded that the Metropolitan Police was "institutionally racist". This was also found to have been one of the primary causes of their failure to solve her son's murder case. It's passionate individuals like Baroness Lawrence who give rise to the call for a second chamber that is better qualified to review legislation.

The leaders of all three major parties in the UK went to the 2010 election agreeing that the current system was undemocratic and in need of reform. There were to be no more life peers, replaced by 15-year terms (Australia's terms are three to six years). All hereditary peers would be removed. At least half the chamber would be elected. Last year, prime minister David Cameron was forced to abandon that ambition for the foreseeable future. It proved tricky convincing lords they no longer had the divine right to a job for life. Certain Tory MPs and even some from Labor also argued that reform would lead to weaker Government with the constant likelihood of gridlock between the two chambers (heaven forbid). There was also a "threat" that a new, more legitimate and therefore more powerful House of Lords could undermine the supremacy of the House of Commons.

Reform was supposed to make way for a second chamber comprised predominantly of elected and expert peers. Chief sponsor of the reform bill, Liberal Democrats leader and deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, looked forward to legislative debates led by judges, scientists, trade unionists, business people and distinguished academics. It all sounded promising; the idea of new, high calibre non-partisan individuals uniquely equipped to judge the merits of bills before the house.

Defeat of the bill has become another blow to an increasingly toxic Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition. Nick Clegg scoffed that, "I personally will not take a seat in an unreformed House of Lords. It just sticks in the throat".

At least Canberra's motley crew of new senators are widely representative of the population they will serve. There's a plumber, a vet, a rugby league legend, a soldier, a civil engineer and a guy who loves his car.

The problems with Britain's house of review are as much procedural as they are ideological. There are currently 785 peers but only 400 seats in the chamber. The House of Lords is already the world's second biggest chamber. Only the People's Assemble of China beats it for size but perhaps not for long. There is currently no limit to the number of British peers.

According to the Electoral Reform Society, the total count could rise to as many as 2,000 after the 2015 election, outnumbering elected MPs by three to one. Luckily it never feels like a crowded house. With so many of them now in their 80s and 90s, many don't bother or can't muster the energy to show up.

The oldest member is currently Lord Healey of Riddlesden once described as the best prime minister the UK never had. As an MP he was secretary of state for defence, chancellor, shadow foreign secretary and deputy leader of the Labor Party. At 96 he doesn't get out that much anymore. But he did recently attribute his long life to "the odd whisky and plenty of rumpy pumpy when I was young". Perhaps they are just like everyone else after all.

Emma Alberici is a host for ABC's Lateline program. View her full profile here.